PSI - Issue 64

Elide Nastri et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 153–160 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

157

5

[N/mm 2 ] [N/mm 2 ] [-] [N/mm] [N/mm] [-] [-]

Table 1. FE calibration: adopted and comparative values.

Material

Adopted values

1252 1640

33455

28400 25800

1.38×10 7

5.96×10 6 0.026

0.012

Comparative values 0.01 The results of the FE modal analysis are reported in Fig. 4. Experimental test typologies reported in the literature were used to select values for the elastic modulus of the masonry types, aiming to closely match the calibrated values for tuff and limestone. Specifically, tuff properties have been referenced to Bozzette masonry (Nastri et al. (2023)), while limestone properties were referred to Aiello et al. (2009) and Feo et al. (2016). For concrete, the elastic modulus was adopted from the model update, as additional connected properties, both elastic and plastic, were derived through the Guo model (Guo (2014)). - - - 0.05

= .

= .

= .

Fig. 4. FE Modal analysis results.

In order to model the plastic and damage behaviour, Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) failure criterion has been selected (Nastri and Todisco (2022)). It is based on two main failure mechanisms: compression crushing and tension cracking. The uniaxial tension and compression behaviour curves have been described according to Guo (2014). The parameters necessary to determine the uniaxial curves are reported in Table 2.

[-]

[-] [-]

Table 2. Uniaxial curves: Guo parameters

Material

[N/mm 2 ]

[N/mm 2 ]

[N/mm 2 ]

[N/mm 2 ]

Tuff

1252

2.85

0.0060 0.0013 0.0020

475

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.93 0.90 1.50

0.35 1.70 2.19

Limestone Concrete

33455 28250

16.50 24.65

12692 12325

The parameters adopted for the definition of the yield function and the flow rule have been defined according to Lubliner et al. (1989), Lee and Fenves (1994), and Nastri and Todisco (2022).